'It’s not up to these students to kick the ass of a neo-nazi! They don’t have to raise their fist! They were taught to be peaceful! Fuck you!'

Dogmatic00 / YoutubeBlack bloc "anti-fascists" attacked right-wing media figure Gavin McInnes outside a New York University building on Thursday night.

McInnes was there to give a talk to students, but was incessantly interrupted by hecklers. Afterward, masked black bloc protesters assaulted the controversial former Fox News personality and sprayed him with mace. Eleven people were eventually arrested.

"I saw Gavin McInnes and I wanted to punch him in the fucking face, but he got away," said one protester.

Meanwhile, a woman claiming to be a professor screamed at the police for not engaging in violence against McInnes and his followers (the so-called "Proud Boys"). Her tirade was captured on video. Watch below, starting at the 10:20 mark:

"You are fucking assholes!" the professor shouted at the New York Police Department (NYPD). "You're protecting the Nazis!"

The NYPD had arrived on the scene to prevent violence and escort McInnes out of the building safely. But the professor seemed to think the cops' job was to shut down a speaker she didn't like—by engaging in explicit violence against him.

"You should kick their ass!" the professor declared, referring to McInnes and his entourage. "You should!"

"These are kids who are trying to learn about humanity!" she said. "They're trying to learn about human rights and against racism and xenophobia, and LGBTQ rights, and you're letting these fucking neo-nazis near here! It's not up to these students to kick the ass of a neo-nazi! They don't have to raise their fist! They were taught to be peaceful! Fuck you!"

So according to the professor, it's college students' job to contemplate humanity and practice tolerance, and it's the cops' job to beat up people with whom the left disagrees. That's a remarkably hypocritical, and indeed, shortsighted view of the role of the police in a free society. If we give cops the right to violently censor unpopular views, leftists' speech will be in just as much jeopardy as McInnes's. The police already engage in far too much violence against people—people of color, in particular—and we should be pleased when they show restraint.

This far-left view that violence is a great way to battle Trump-ism has little basis in reality, according to social science research. When violent agitators sucker punch Richard Spencer, Spencer—a repulsive human being—gains sympathy points. When they shout down McInnes and attack him, McInnes gets free media and the public recoils in horror. When they set Berkeley on fire and stop Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking, Yiannopoulos sells more books.

As I argue in my latest column for The Daily Beast, Steve Bannon and President Trump are the biggest beneficiaries of mob violence:

Some may say that desperate times—the election of Trump—call for desperate measures, even though those measures have often failed in the past. I would ask them to take a mental picture of Nixon gleefully learning about the increased violence on college campuses, and then replace Nixon with Trump, who has just learned from Bannon that anti-Yiannopoulos protesters resorted to violence to shut him down.

Would Bannon and Trump be saddened to learn this news? Or would they see it as an opportunity?

McInnes, it should be noted, routinely says obnoxious things that deserve criticism. He's something of a Diet Milo. But the sort of anti-fascist violence—a contradiction if ever there was one—on display last night will be seen as legitimizing whatever law-and-order based repression the Trump administration plans to foist upon American citizens.

Updated at 3:00 p.m.: To be clear, the woman in the video does not specifically identify herself as an NYU professor. In a statement, an NYU spokesperson told me the university has not yet identified her.

Photo Credit: Dogmatic00 / Youtube

Associate Editor Robby Soave, a 2017–2018 Novak Fellow at the Fund for American Studies, is the author of a forthcoming book about campus activism in the age of Trump.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

As he should, as he should. Let us take this opportunity to remind readers that NYU has a stellar record on issues of free and open debate, which raises a huge question mark as to why the Heterodox Academy should have given this university such a poor ranking (6.25 out of 100) in its "Guide to Colleges." Some of NYU's excellent "free speech" actions include blocking the insidious Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng from speaking with reporters at Union Station, cultivating relations with, and appropriately following the rules laid down by, governments that host the institution's "international" campuses in places like Abu Dhabi, and working together with cutting-edge prosecutors to secure the right verdict (sadly assaulted in an outrageous "First Amendment" dissent filed by a single, isolated judge) in our nation's leading criminal "satire" case. See the documentation at:

P.s. NYU's respect for true culture (for we must, of course, destroy culture in order to save it) is also demonstrated by its destruction of Edgar Allen Poe's home in Greenwich Village to make room for a law student lounge; and by its use of student tuition funds to pay for the elegant summer vacation homes of several deans and dons, including above all the former president, John Sexton, author of a remarkable work on baseball and God, whose program for massive real estate construction in Greenwich Village is a model for all universities.

He's a British TV presenter and longtime host of "The Family Feud" game show. He also had a role in the movie "The Running Man" in which Arnold promised to punch a fist right through Richard's stomach and tear out his spine.

But to feed the troll a little: it's not about what Milo thinks or feels, it's about the fact that so many people ignore claims of white nationalism after assholes on the left misuse it so recklessly.

It's gotten to the point that if someone on the Left calls someone a white nationalist, they're almost certainly lying out their ass. But this guy really is one, and I'm trying to correct the errors that scum like you have caused in people's thinking.

They are on a treadmill. They called everybody "racist" for a while, but that stopped working. Now they have moved on to "white supremacist" -- a phrase I doubt I had heard a dozen times in my life before the election -- and they will ride that for the few months it has any rhetorical power.

What's fun about "white supremacist" is that it kind of implies that what makes it worse than regular racism is that it's coming from white people. No one talks about "black supremacists", even though there are certainly black racists, or "asian supremacists", even though there are certainly asian racists. It feeds into the whole "white privilege" narrative. Interestingly, people who talk about "white privilege" tend to feel a certain way about gun rights, which they believe are overwhelmingly in favor of white people. Frankly, taken as a whole, the impression I tend to get is that the SJW crowd hates and fears the idea that white people might use those guns to prevent their "privilege" from being...redistributed...courtesy of the state.

I think it should be emphasized that he really, actually is a genuine white nationalist asshole, and not just some guy being slandered that way like Milo.

]

The problem is that so many people are conflated together as "white nationalists" that the term itself loses any real meaning. I think it does apply to Spenser, but hardly anyone else they throw it at.

Given how the term "black nationalist" has traditionalist referred to those advocating legal seperatism, it's odd to see identitarians being called "white nationalists," even if some few favor segregation. It seems that the movement is most focused on recognition of cultural identity, as we've seen in recent decades of various Ethnic Studies - it strikes me (although I admit to very little perusal of the topic) that the 'mainstream' of the Alt-Right (even as odious as I find it's messaging) isn't actually classic White Supremacy.

I wonder why black nationalism or black separatism is acceptable or understandable where the same isn't true for whites. Genuinely, not being sarcastic. I'm not in favor of either one, but it strikes me that neither is particularly worse than the other.

They are not quite the same, although the is lots of overlap: their death toll is even higher, but they pulled off the propaganda stunt of not having people recoil in the same horror when they say "I'm a communist/socialist" instead of "I'm a Nazi/fascist".

Pretty soon we'll start hearing Robby say 'it should be noted that Julie Borowski or Justin Raimondo or John Stossel (who has been targeted by the Left in the past) or whoever say terrible things and should be condemned'.

The good thing about NYPD facing so many lawsuits every year is that it keeps the institutional knowledge about who can and can't be beaten without someone getting fired/demoted fresh. De Blasio didn't have to do thing.

No it's not about De Blasio telling them not to intervene. They did their job, they knew they were going to be recorded, as much as they would like to beat them like a runaway slave it wasn't the time.

I've been thinking the last couple of days about a design for a backpack-carried machine that would shoot pepper spray a long distance. Basically like a smaller pressure-washer powered by a scuba tank. It would be pretty cool to see a jet of pepper spray go about 50 feet.

This far-left view that violence is a great way to battle Trump-ism has little basis in reality, according to social science research.

No, just no. It's a far-left view that their enemies should accept the view that violence doesn't solve anything. Stop listening to what they say and start watching what they do. You seriously believe leftists like Lenin and Stalin and Mao didn't believe violence solved one whole hell of a lot of problems? They preached peaceful coexistence and the brotherhood of man and all that lovey-dovey socialist crap like all get-out, though. Mainly, they thought you should remain calm and peaceful while they come over there and take all your stuff. As long as you don't resist, they're the most pacifist people in the world. They just abhor violence, right up to the point where they stick an ice axe into your skull. Every damn dirty smelly hippie out there chanting about "give peace a chance" knows damn well there ain't no peace like the peace of the grave.

"This far-left view that violence is a great way to battle Trump-ism has little basis in reality, according to social science research."

Saying that the idea that using violence is a good way to solve your problems is a mistaken idea is the same as saying using violence to attempt to solve your problems is a bad idea, isn't it?

And then when you ascribe this view to the far-left? It's not far left, the first hungry monkey that figured out he could satisfy his hunger by whacking his neighbor on the head with a stick and stealing his food knew violence is a good way to solve problems.

The first far-left monkey was the one that figured out that if you could convince your neighbor it was wrong to whack people in the head with a stick you could steal his food without having to worry about getting whacked in the head with a stick.

Hence the far-left's abhorrence of the Second Amendment. Convince the citizenry to disarm itself (or compel the same through legislation) and any meaningful opposition to tyranny becomes all but impossible.

Where are articles that include any amount of critical analysis? I understand that they need to create articles to generate revenue, but, in the absence of thought, the word "libertarian" is just a word to be spewed to try to convince others that you are "qualified" to write for Reason.

will be seen as legitimizing whatever law-and-order based repression the Trump administration plans to foist upon American citizens.

Yes. The real shame here isn't the fact there are a bunch of juvenile hero-complex idiots running around in fake ninja outfits and pepper spraying people/breaking shit. The real problem is that they're legitimizing Trump and the repressive regime we all just know he is going to foist on us.

Trump's victory has been something to behold from a social perspective. It's completely caused a good portion of the country to have a full-fledged psychotic break, taking their labeling of anyone who doesn't agree with them as a "Nazi" to it's logical conclusion--that Nazis should be violently resisted.

In short, if you're not a leftist and you haven't been doing your Warty-approved deadlifts, you're going to be in for a hard time.

How long until one of those assholes gets shot? When they are shot, I can only imagine the cry from the left about how these wonderful protestors were relieved of their rights by a horrible alt-right gun extremist. Sadly, too many will take the side of these mobsters.

If you want to fight racism and xenophobia, then you should probably be spending a lot of time with racists and xenophobes. Otherwise you're just talking amongst yourselves. Nobody said missionary work is pleasant.

Yeah, but that's a risky strategy. If you start actually engaging all those racists and xenophobes, you might find out they aren't monsters. Or you might not see, like you can from a distance, what awful racists and xenophobes they are. Or worse, you might start hearing arguments from them that you don't have an easy response to.

I would ask them to take a mental picture of Nixon gleefully learning about the increased violence on college campuses, and then replace Nixon with Trump, who has just learned from Bannon that anti-Yiannopoulos protesters resorted to violence to shut him down.

Would Bannon and Trump be saddened to learn this news? Or would they see it as an opportunity?

Both. Just like Obama and school shootings. Are you not familiar with this group of people known as "politicians"

It isn't necessarily the cartoon stereotype of evil you imply, if they believe the agenda they are "exploiting" the story for is a good result that would make something positive out of a negative event.

I had an authoritarian/socialist teacher in high school who would yell, "I KNOW ECONOMICS," in a feeble attempt to cover up the fact that she didn't even understand classical economics, and instead simply felt that communism/totalitarianism was better.

It's freaking Orwellian. Milo Yiannoppolous might as well be named Goldstein, and he's happily trotted out any time someone wants to invoke 2 minutes of hate. Just make them hate and don't let them actually hear what their opponents are trying to say.

I think it's foolish to label anyone in contemporary American politics "fascist" or "nazi", but certain groups are definitely displaying some close similarities to some fascist tactics and beliefs. Mostly on the far-left.

Whatever word you use to describe it is as you point out besides the point. The bottom line is these groups are engaged in systematic political violence for the purpose of depriving their political opponents of a right to assemble and speak. And that is about direct of an assault on our freedom and security as there can be.

the flipside to that is people increasingly seeing through the media veil. Trump didn't elect himself, but the left will never admit that its tactics paved the way for people tired of being called this and that simply for not towing the proggy lion.

I agree. I think all libertarians rightly have voluminous reservations about Trump, but I think that the 2016 Presidential Election may serve as the point at which the veil of the media (to use your term) was lifted. They relinquished any objectivity or credibility they purported to have. Vast swathes of the American electorate no longer trust them. Most people go elsewhere for their news.

There may be some growing pains with decentralized news outlets, but I am all for it.

You can say they lost credibility, but the reality is that CNN is still being touted as real news even after the revelations released in the emails. If that doesn't tear them down what will?

Even telling horror stories of the helicopter you weren't in just grants a short hiatus after which you can excoriate others for the same sin. And no one bats an eye regarding the hypocrisy. That these people are so far above the fray somehow continues to amaze. But use a phrase about a tennis player, who happens to be black, to describe their guerrilla tactics labels you a racist, which cannot be argued with any rationality.

The media is a beast that I don't think can be stopped because they are part of the same corruption scheme. This past election made that clear that it wasn't just conspiracy but a deep seeded fact, however, the majority are too invested to distance themselves or are too ignorant to understand.

It's because people don't want news, they want their biases confirmed. It's human nature. We're tribes living under an uneasy peace at the best of times, and precious few want to risk having their beliefs overturned just for the sake of understanding people who disagree with them or, heavens forfend, being informed.

I think it's foolish to label anyone in contemporary American politics "fascist" or "nazi",

Nazi? Almost certainly. But fascist? I'm not so sure. I'd be willing to bet that, if you took out the obvious historical references, you'd find a pretty wide swath of the public who would gladly sign off on fascism. If you were to not let peopl know that what you were advocating was fascism and simply asked them if they supported a massive government intervention in the economy to ensure social solidarity coupled with social interventions to encourage social harmony within the auspices of the state, you'd find the program would have a huge number of takers.

Just remember, one of the bigger Broadway hits of the last 30 years was about a glamorous fascist.

But don't tell the "progressive" left that Hitler advocated "free" healthcare, "free" college, extensive regulation of the whole economy (especially finance and banking), a national old age pension system, and a general crackdown on the wealthy.

It doesn't "discredit their cause". It shows their cause for what it is. If Neo Nazi skinheads showed up at a black civil rights march and started beating people up, the proper response would not be "don't you understand how much this discredits the Neo Nazi cause when you do this?". The proper response would be "Neo Nazis are violent assholes and their cause is horrible and must be stopped.

Its the same thing here. What exactly is the cause here that is being discredited? Totalitarian leftism is their cause. And if in fact these actions discredit that cause, that is a good thing. And whatever it does, their actions are an expression of who they are and the nature of their cause Robby. They are not just well meaning people trying to do the right thing but going overboard and choosing the wrong methods anymore than the NeoNazi skinheads in my hypothetical are.

If Neo Nazi skinheads showed up at a black civil rights march and started beating people up I would not be surprised to see them shot dead by law enforcement and utter silence from the "concerned about excessive force contingent."

Not coincidentally I think this is why those asshats never get too violent.

Enough with all of this throat clearing and equivocation. I don't care if Milo or this guy says things you don't like or that I don't like. Neither of them to my knowledge have ever engaged in violence or advocated that others engage in violence. So every time you talk about these incidents and caveat it with the "but understand these guys say horrible things, you imply that that fact, assuming it is a fact, is relevant to the discussion. it is not. It is no more relevant to the discussion that the fact that a rape victim liked casual sex. One can in no way justify the other and to talk about the two in the same context wrongfully implies it does.

No they don't lash out at their critics with just as much illiberal fervor. When have any Milo supporters ever shown up at a Progressive gathering and started assaulting people? Never that I can remember.

He needs to send in DOJ and familiarize the Antifa people with a little statute we like to call RICO. These things are a perfect candidate for a RICO prosecution. What are they if not an interstate criminal conspiracy? There are leaders behind all of this. And they are not out beating people up. They are organizing and enabling people to do that. And they no doubt think that makes them immune from the law. It doesn't.

He needs to send in DOJ and familiarize the Antifa people with a little statute we like to call RICO. These things are a perfect candidate for a RICO prosecution. What are they if not an interstate criminal conspiracy? There are leaders behind all of this. And they are not out beating people up. They are organizing and enabling people to do that. And they no doubt think that makes them immune from the law. It doesn't.

This actually kinda scares me just a little.

Not that I think Trump should do something different but that, while I don't firmly believe it, I've kinda asserted in the past that Trump is more of a Wilhelm II or interim Chancellor of the Weimar.

What if Trump's RICO crackdown results in us putting a former-veteran/budding-socialist into prison for inciting a 'demonstration' at say... a beer hall? I mean, those Antifa logos seem... oddly colored and their tactics seem really familiar.

Conservative students are frequently censored by public university administrations for even mundane kinds of [expression] (i.e., handing out copies of the Constitution), and bringing Yiannopoulos to campus is a form of revenge.

Those groups deserve criticism, too. It can't be too hard to find a conservative speaker who would gleefully trigger delicate campus liberals while also adding something of substance to the debate.

Some conservative campus group should conduct and experiment by inviting Robby as a speaker. I bet the reaction would be largely the same as to the likes of Milo and Christina Hoff Sommers, except maybe muted by the fact that fruit sushi isn't as well known.

Those groups deserve criticism, too. It can't be too hard to find a conservative speaker who would gleefully trigger delicate campus liberals while also adding something of substance to the debate.

let me try what Robby is doing here

These women deserve criticism too. It can't be too hard to refrain from wearing revealing clothing and throwing yourself at any man you meet

Because Robby doesn't like these people and doesn't think they add "substance" to the debate, whatever that is, that somehow mitigates the violence taken in response. And don't tell me that isn't what he is implying here. What relevance does any criticism of the speaker and the group that invited him have here if not as a way to mitigate the crimes of their opponents?

This shows that Robby has never heard Milo speak. Milo isn't the smartest guy in the room, and he's certainly no ideologue, but the man talks substance, and it's pretty much all substance on the Robby beat. He talks about tactics of the SJW left, their ideological ancestors, and how to begin to defeat them.

A lot of his speeches are shallow attempts at addressing a broad range of topics, but to say they're devoid of substance just shows Robby's ignorance.

The only thing I can think of is that it's a Canadian thing. When Toronto got their MLS club, one of the first fan groups to organize called themselves (completely without self-reflection) The Red Patch Boys. As far as I know, they still exist as a bunch of white trustafarians pretending to be a "firm" in the West Ham United/Millwall/Chelsea sense.

Maybe these people should consider that millions of Americans would have no idea who Milo, Spencer and McInnes are if they didn't turn their pitiful little forums into something out of 1920s Munich that's guaranteed to get excessive news coverage.

The only context I hear about these alt-right jackasses is in write-ups about violent at their events.

Nope, not pretentious enough. This is New York University, so the title of their assignment must be something like "Using Vandalism and Direct Action to Suppress Racist Elements of Cis-Het Normative Culture: A Personal Case Study".

That is all I ever hear as well. I honestly had never heard of this guy until this morning. But again, whether this helps or hurts the cause of the people doing the violence is besides the point. The point is that these people are violent assholes who are engaged in a direct assault on our freedom. It doesn't matter who they are attacking because if they are allowed to get away with it, they won't stop there and eventually will be attacking anyone who doesn't buy into their grotesque ideology.

Think of it this way. The Nazi SA spent most of its time in the 20s beating up Soviet backed Communists. The fact that the people they were beating up were in many cases just as evil as they were, didn't mitigate how bad or how much of a threat the Nazis were. Same thing here. No matter what you believe about this guy or Milo, neither of them are violent and even if they were, that wouldn't make these people any better or less of a threat.

I have no real opinion on Milo (haven't actually heard/read anything he has said/written, only summaries from Rico) and have never even heard of this McInnis guy or his not-so-ambiguously gay pride fanboys, but the only thing I've concluded from the last 48 hours is that certain segments of the Left are becoming an increasingly dangerous threat to society and much of the MSM tacitly approves of their terrorist actions.

Like someone says above, keep letting them get away with this shit and they will be doing it to Julie Borowski or Robby Soave. Robby seems to operate under the mistaken assumption that there is something special about Milo or this guy that "triggers" these assholes. No. They are just violent assholes who will attack anyone they view as an opponent.

Like someone says above, keep letting them get away with this shit and they will be doing it to Julie Borowski or Robby Soave.

Robby might change his tune if he's on the receiving end of this stuff. But if this happens to Julie Borowski, he'll find something vile or reprehensible or loathsome about her message. Oh, but violence is still wrong, let's not forget.

I've had a touch of doubts that at least some of the opposition to Milo was being orchestrated by him in order to boost his profile. Because I see him as nothing more than a Glenn Beck variant - ie. a complete and total huckster.

The other people I do not know, but since the election a clear pattern is emerging, and it would appear to be the same tactics no matter who the speaker.

A lot of these people are teenagers or in their early 20s. They don't truly comprehend the bubble they live in. They know who Milo and Gavin are, so they assume that everyone must know of those two. They also don't watch or read mainstream news outlets, but places that cater to their insular concerns, again giving them the impression that Milo is a hot topic that is in the news every day. It's just like they think their sizable protest of this or that is representative of the entire country.

There's lots of youtube footage that demonstrates that many of the protestersrioters also don't know who Milo is - or at least, his message. It's uncanny - almost as though they are mindless automatons, riven by some kind of central intelligence....

I watched a video that made an interesting point. This sort of thing is going to do two things, first, it will Striesand the hell out of Milo, McInnes and their ilk, second it will legitimize and justify any future violent actions taken on the part of, you know, actual Nazis and Stormfronters.

It doesn't legitimize it. It could and will if things get bad enough, justify it in the minds of such people. It also can if it becomes endemic enough drive people towards those groups. If your choices are get the shit beat out of you by the mob while people like Soave look on disturbed but doing nothing, conform, or join up with people like Stormfront, Stormfront starts too look a lot more attractive than it would normally look to a lot of people.

"...you're letting these fucking neo-nazis near here! It's not up to these students to kick the ass of a neo-nazi! They don't have to raise their fist! They were taught to be peaceful! Fuck you!"

Um...I don't think words mean what she thinks they mean...

Who's the neo-nazi in this scenario? The one trying to give a speech, or the one trying to silence said speech and advocate violence as a tactic to accomplish silencing said speech. Also, "taught to be peaceful"? B.s. By my observation lefties have the true propensity for violence because they believe the ends justify the means.

Mao did something very much like this with the Red Guard during the Cultural Revolution. Turned the dogs loose on his political opponents for not being red enough, then sicced the army on them once he'd gotten back into power.

The cops really need to start taking this stuff seriously or it will escalate.

Guys like Milo and McInnes are popular enough that they could say something on a show and have hundreds of their hard core supporters at an event and ready to fight. Then you have a mob war on your hands.

It will happen if the authorities don't start cracking down on the violence now.

The cops at the Inauguration did. They arrested over 200 people and all of them are going to be charged in federal court with felony rioting. Whatever happens going forward, I bet you don't see many riots near the White House or at events the President attends. The Secret Service and the Feds don't play around like campus cops do.

Letting them run free and attack people anywhere is dangerous. This is how civil wars get started. There are some on the radical right who think they want a civil war but I don't think they will like it when they push average people far enough to get their rifles out of the attic to put them down.

It totally is. Someone mentions above about how eventually the Neo Nazis really are going to show up and kick these snowflakes ass. That is probably true and not a good thing. As much as I would enjoy watching these assholes get beat like seal pups with pool cues, the outbreak of no kidding political violence would be a tragedy and not something anyone should want.

Hasn't worked with criminal drug gangs, won't work with political extremists. As long as the fighting is between themselves, who cares. Getting the cops involved doesn't change the risk/reward outcomes for the criminals but very much rewards the cops. We've seen how well that has worked in other areas.

Because the people who get hurt when they engage in violence and rioting aren't political extremists. It's a guy who runs a limo company, employees at a Starbucks, or random reasonable people who just wanted to listen to a speaker without taking a brick off of their face. You can't let the political extremists have the freedom to riot and assault law-abiding citizens.

I know I'll get blasted for saying this, but there are rare times when 1968 Chicago PD tactics are called for. The rioting by the phony "anarchists" is one of those rare times. Bunch of fucking pussies wearing masks on their faces - why hide if you're so proud of yourselves?

This is in many ways a slightly more pathetic replay of what went on in the late 60s and early 70s. People forget because the left successfully sent it down the memory hole, but the Vietnam protests, especially the ones on college campuses were not peaceful. They were nasty and violent as hell. People have this idea that Kent State was a bunch of redneck National Guardsman mowing down peaceful college students singing songs and giving away flowers. No. Kent State was at the end of nearly a week of rioting that had damn near burned down the campus. The National Guardsman didn't pull the trigger because they just wanted to shoot some hippies. They pulled the trigger because they were confronted with an angry violent mob that was throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at them. That doesn't necessarily mean they were right to shoot, but we shouldn't forget what they were confronted with.

The upside of all that was the Vietnam war didn't end and Nixon ended up getting re-elected in a 49 state landslide. So, this might not work out like these assholes think it will.

It is one of those events that happened so fast and created so much chaos we will never know. But why were they there with rifles locked and loaded in the first place? Because there had been a week long riot by a violent mob is why.

The upside of all that was the Vietnam war didn't end and Nixon ended up getting re-elected in a 49 state landslide. So, this might not work out like these assholes think it will

The sociological landscape is a little different now in that the riots of the late 60s and early 70s contributed to increased suburban/exurbanization. Urban areas and college campuses are almost exclusively Democratic havens that have led to an exponential growth in left-wing activist networks and increasingly insular groupthink. However, these kinds of riots still tend to turn off the normies and motivate them to get to the ballot box and vote, especially for someone that's promising to restore order. So the use of state force becomes temporarily acceptable just to try and settle things down.

Only this time, the left controls the mass information and cultural institutions but still needs martyrs to push their "underdog" narratives. So these people are going to get increasingly violent and hysterical until Trump or some governor sends out the Guard, some people get shot, and the media will faithfully produce the "Violence in Trump's America" line they've been desperate to push since November, despite the fact it was their own side provoking and causing the violence in the first place.

They controlled the media back then. The media portrayed Kent State as if Nixon himself had pulled the trigger.

The only difference between today and then is that Trump would win a 39 or 40 state re-election rather than a 49 state landslide. It is hard to see how anyone who voted for Trump in 2016 is going to see this and think they shouldn't vote for him again.

I think there's a difference between the anti-war riots of the 1960s and today's anti-fascist (sic) riots.

When the government is using conscription to fight a war, I think targeted violence (against the government, not "society" in general, or even its vocal supporters) can be justified on a case by case basis. But the recent violence re Milos and McInnes is completely different. Those two guys don't have any power with the State and aren't wielding violence themselves, but merely exercising free speech.

But doesn't today's two sided populism that's running rampant through the streets met much of the same test? The two sides are simmering at a boiling point. Both see the bureaucrats as their enemy and their salvation. This is coming to a point where government forces are seen as the singular malevolent force that must be quashed.

People have this idea that Kent State was a bunch of redneck National Guardsman mowing down peaceful college students singing songs and giving away flowers. No. Kent State was at the end of nearly a week of rioting that had damn near burned down the campus. The National Guardsman didn't pull the trigger because they just wanted to shoot some hippies. They pulled the trigger because they were confronted with an angry violent mob that was throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at them.

I wrote a term paper in college that defended the National Guard at Kent State arguing essentially this, and my lefty, Berkeley trained history professor gave me an A, conceding that my research was sound. That said, this was before the politicization of everything - doubt I could get away with that today.

Wow- McInnes is a 'diet Milo', aye? Tell that to your coworker, Matt Welch, who was on his podcast not too long ago. I'm not a regular listener of McInnes (I heard his podcast, because Welch was on there) or Milo, but pretty soon we'll start hearing you say 'it should be noted that Julie Borowski or Justin Raimondo or Tucker Carlson or whatever say terrible things and should be condemned'.

Why don't you leave the condemnation to the listener. Your job is to report on the rising tide of the fascist Left and not tell us who should or shouldn't be condemned, buddy.

Here's hoping Reason's next so we can hear Robbie tell us how John Stossel's opinions should be condemned

McInnes, it should be noted, routinely says obnoxious things that deserve criticism. He's something of a Diet Milo. But the sort of anti-fascist violence—a contradiction if ever there was one—on display last night will be seen as legitimizing whatever law-and-order based repression the Trump administration plans to foist upon American citizens.

It should be noted that a significant portion of those at the front and center and agitating the loudest at most of the Trump protests and the BLM protests are carrying signs and wearing shirts and logos of RevCom and its Antifacism offshoot. These people are communists Donnie. They have an ideology, the most destructive and bloody one that the world has seen over the past century.

Dumb question, who is McInnes and why does Robby think he is such a Nazi? I honestly have no idea who he is and a google search doesn't reveal him to be anything but a run of the mill Britbart right guy. Am I missing something?

He is a co-founder of Vice and got squeezed out when his views got too right wing for them, which is about the time that Vice started to go very far downhill. He currently writes for Takis and has a series of podcasts.

He is actually a pretty funny guy. He used to do the "Do's and Dont's" over there that were sometimes brilliant. He has some libertarian tendencies, but I would classify him more towards the paleoconservative. When he was at Vice it had more of a punk vibe, which has been completely turned into a SJW rag.

He isn't. Some of his views I disagree with heartily, but casting him as some white supremacist is absolutely ridiculous. For what it is worth, he is married to an American Indian. Lately he ha taken to calling himself a "western chauvinist" which to me is just a reaction to decades of cultural relevance being pushed hard and going from an anthropological theory to mainstream acceptance.

People like Sailor and John Derbyshire like, in the most charitable description, to at least flirt with racial determinism. Does that mean they should be prevented from speaking or publishing, or the target of violence? Absolutely not. Doesn't mean I can't find their beliefs wrong and disreputable.

Sure you can. But that opinion has nothing to do with and in no way mitigates the wrong of doing violence against them. So, do yourself a favor and bring up your beliefs about their opinions in the proper forum not when talking about the political violence done against them.

And I specifically said that they absolutely should not be prevented from speaking or publishing, nor be the target of violence. I brought up their opinions simply to elaborate why I think writing for Taki drags MacInnes into the supposed alt-right camp in the minds of people like Robby Horse.

One of his other 'notable' gigs is as a contributor to Taki's Mag along with John Derbyshire. He's also a contributor to the Canuckistani Rebel media group, and thus a colleague of the rather delightful Lauren Southern.

He is one of the bad kind of white people. Would definitely not be invited to any cocktail party on the Orange Line, unless he was part of some kind of menagerie where the host wanted to show off the exotica and esoterica of his social contacts.

Yup, unless he does something fantastically stupid (and yes, of course that is more than possible) he is going to win by a much larger margin than before. The left has gone from tricking crazy and terrible to stark raving mad and sickening.

Meanwhile, in Romania, hundreds of thousands of people are protesting corruption for the third day in a row. An emergency executive order by the ruling Social Democratic Party, decriminalizing certain acts of corruption, and providing amnesty to those convicted of corruption was the final straw. The party's president is convicted of election fraud himself (organizing bus transport for people to vote in multiple jurisdictions), and has another pending case case (which would be decriminalized, and the punishment reduced to a fine).
I am aware of slogans such as #taxationistheft, #lessmarxmoremises, #legalizeit, and even "democracy is when two wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for lunch". Reason -please report on this, it is pretty big news and the libertarian movements are becoming more and more relevant in the country.

I have little to say other than people do not want a country where politically motivated brawling in the streets is a commonplace occurrence. They really don't want that; no one does. We've been fortunate enough to only have to witness that from a far in our lives. It looks a lot less romantic up close and personal.

Find people from Ireland, South East Asia, parts of Africa or Latin America and ask them what it's like to have this be a regular occurrence in their lives.

You could argue that at some point it might be your only choice. While true, you damned well better be certain we're at that point before crossing that Rubicon. Because you're inviting something truly awful into your lives (which now is statistically likely to be shorter) in the hopes of preventing something worse.

Hard to say it much better than that Voros. These people create an enormous dilema. Do nothing and they are encouraged and use terror to enforce their will on us. Fight back and you end up with the situation you describe. Once violence starts, it is very hard to stop.

At this point, the only thing to do is hold the cops to a very high standard. When people do this shit, they need to be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The feds need to be all over Berkeley and the UC police departments over two nights ago. As far as I know, no one was arrested. And that needs to change.

No sane person wants this, but it will happen if the leftists keep this shit up. Eventually, the people they attack will start fighting back and once THAT happens, then they'll start throwing the first punches.

I think the future is going to be very ugly for a time. These people are insane.

This far-left view that violence is a great way to battle Trump-ism has little basis in reality, according to social science research. When violent agitators sucker punch Richard Spencer, Spencer—a repulsive human being—gains sympathy points. When they shout down McInnes and attack him, McInnes gets free media and the public recoils in horror. When they set Berkeley on fire and stop Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking, Yiannopoulos sells more books.

Again -

the issue as Robby posits it isn't that aggression is de-facto wrong, isn't that its merely unwarranted and unjust, isn't that it justifies (and may even demand) violence in response (as we've recently seen)...

...its that it fails to achieve the (apparently valid) goals of the people being violent.

Which just makes you wonder = if it DID achieve those goals, it would apparently be "okay" by Robby?

We'll just skip the 'birds of a feather' attempt to justify the violence by casting McInness as "Milo-Lite" (who is himself Richard Spenser-lite)....

...which, given that Matt Welch appears on (right-wing?) shows alongside McInnes all the time, makes him some 3-degrees of Kevin Bacon removed from Hiter, and an equally valid target according to Robby-logic.

I dunno, with Slate becoming Salon, and Salon becoming even moreso, there might be dozens upon dozens of Totally Moderate Lefties looking for a new home, one friendly to pot, ass sex & Mexicans. KMW and Gillespie are onto something, I tells ya!

Not only are their tactics wrong, but being communists/socialists, they are actively fighting for evil (and I don't use that word lightly). They should be condemned in the strongest manner possible and from all angles.

They should be condemned in the strongest manner possible and from all angles.

Well as i said - i think the problem here is that this IS Robby's "strongest manner", and its also the ONLY angle he feels comfortable with.

(given that he uses the exact same utilitarian argument over and over again - e.g. "violence doesn't work!"; as though if it were effective, it would then be justified; otherwise the distinction isn't worth making)

Of course it would be justified, then loathsome scum would no longer plague Robby, and he'd be free to frolic and gambol through Fields of Liberty.
But, no, these protesters had to go and make things worse.

Or maybe he's just addressing the most popular talking point from the "punch Nazis" crowd. Seriously I've heard moron after moron say that non-violence accomplishes nothing and extolling the virtues of violence, so might as well cite some facts about that.

1) you're conceding that the mag is 'diet-leftism', something i think they'd actually disagree with (as do i)
2) you're arguing that the editorial bent of the magazine changes in response to trends among *commenters* (rather than the other way around).

Welcome (back) to libertarianism. We've missed you progtarians over the last 8 years of the Libertarian Moment™, and are glad that you're back from your Obama Hibernation. Please note that slandering and defaming those of us who have been around here for years isn't a great way to start your (new) stint at Reason. Please keep your triggers and emotions inside the car at all times, and at no time is flash derptography allowed.

Why should it be noted other than as a way to mitigate the actions of the left here? That statement is straight up offensive. It shouldn't be noted. It has nothing to do with what the left did last night. And Fuck Soave for implying it does.

The other issue I'd note is that Robby has a habit of noting that all these victims just say the most awful things. Yet I never hear him specify what exactly these guys say that is so awful or repugnant. For all I know the most horrifying thing McInnes could have ever said is that Chicago Deep Dish is pizza. I've tried looking for the Horrible Milo Comments (tm) and I never really find much.

I've never heard McInnes say anything that I haven't heard first from most people I know. Aside from the truly dedicated SJWs and far left, most people don't really think that transsexuality or the like is "normal"; not that it's wrong or anyone else's business, necessarily, just not the default human state of affairs. They also believe that there are differences between the genders, that believing woman are equal to men doesn't mean believing that women are the same as men, that white privilege is at least overstated or at most complete and utter horseshit, and that screaming SJWs/Progressives idiots are obnoxious, self-righteous bullies who should be ignored or, preferably, put in their place.

Is McInnes a libertarian? No, probably not. But he's a damn sight closer to it than several of the regular writers on this site, I'll say that.

Oh thank god. For a minute there I thought Robby was going to forget to signal his virtue to make sure we know he's not a Nazi.

When they set Berkeley on fire and stop Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking, Yiannopoulos sells more books.

You forgot to call him "vile".

McInnes, it should be noted, routinely says obnoxious things that deserve criticism. He's something of a Diet Milo.

Oh you saved it, great job not letting Gavin off the hook for his "repulsive"/ "vile"/ "despicable" /"loathsome" views that you know are that way because they're unpopular. Thankfully Robby's opinions are all soft and cuddly.

on occasion, I wonder if/when one of these flare-ups might occur at a campus outside of the typical Blue bubble, say at some university in the South or Texas or corn country, places where conservative-leaning people live, people with access to and knowledge of firearms, places where law enforcement is less inclined to let vandals have their day.

In one of his (only five, damnit!) books Robert Frezza observed that you can often predict the bahavior of an organization by assuming hat it as been takenover by a secret cabal intnt on its destruction.

That's the Liberal Left right now. Maybe they'll pull back sometime in the next four years, but if they don't Trump is gonna get a LANDSLIDE in 2020. And, so far, he's playing them like an accordian.

I swear it describes the Congressional Republicans too. They now have both houses of Congress and the Presidency. You would think they would be rushing through regulatory reforms, budget cuts, Obamacare repeal, tax reform and cuts, eliminating government agencies, and generally fulfilling every conservative promise and dream.

Instead they seem to be trying to replace the Democrats as the moderately liberal opposition party.

This is the inevitable conclusion of the Left's style of argumentation over the last decade. When a disagreement over tax policy must be premised, not on a genuine belief about the role of government, but on a revulsion of the poor or minorities. When trepidation over affirmative action must be predicated on a hatred of blacks. When a sincere (if perhaps misguided or incomplete) belief about the origins of personhood must be grounded on a hatred of women (of which I am one). When an earnest conviction about an individual's right to self-arm must be rooted in a desire to kill others or have others killed. When a heartfelt wish to mitigate terrorism must be rooted in some kind of hatred for Muslims. When every point of disagreement must be rooted in an implicit, indelible, and irrational hatred towards another group of people. When you portray your enemy as "literally Hilter."

This is the result. "Justified" violence towards others and their ilk. Formation of tribal units. Dehumanization of your opponent. No longer are they persons to be persuaded, but objects to be manipulated. No longer are they individuals with personal views, but instead the amalgamation of their immutable characteristics. No longer can they be reasoned with. They must be eradicated.

Liberty dies when we fail to recognize the dignity of our adversary. When finding any common ground is impossible, violence will eventually ensue.

I LOATHE ROBER REICH. Here's a snippet from his CNN appearance on the riots.

"I was there for part of last night and I know what I saw. Those people were not Berkeley students. Those people were outsiders, agitators. I've never seen them before. There's rumors that they actually were right-wingers. They were a part of a group that were organized and ready to create the kind of tumult and danger you saw that forced the police to cancel the event. So Donald Trump, when he says Berkeley doesn't respect free speech rights, that's a complete distortion of the truth. I mean, Berkeley opened its biggest auditorium to this right-wing Breitbart News character, this hateful odious person. They said, 'Free speech is the most important thing we stand for,' and it was these outsiders who caused the police to finally come in and have to cancel it."

Statements like this are actually dangerous. (Not permissibly-prohibited-under-the-First-Amendment dangerous, just run of the mill dangerous.) They are dangerous because they justify further violence.

Setting aside the utter nonsense billowing from those words, it isn't much of a logical leap from "we are being framed for violence and our subsidies will be wrongfully taken from us" to "we need to do something about it, violently if necessary, as self defense for the violence against us."

They can't stop themselves. They revel in destruction. It's all they know. Which of course is unsurprising, as the progressive/regressive left is grounded in pitting people against themselves and depriving them of their humanity and individuality.

On Wednesday night, an Afghan-American software engineer and self-described "global geek girl" videotaped her friend Kiara Robles as a local TV reporter interviewed Robles about the raucous protests at University of California Berkeley that canceled a speech by controversial Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos. Robles wore the trademark red hat of the Trump presidential campaign, only with the message, "Make BitCoin Great Again," her straight, long blond hair sweeping out from under the cap.

Suddenly, a masked attacker in a leather jacket lunged at Robles and doused her face in stinging pepper spray. "My friend was giving an interview when some coward peppersprayed her," Robles's friend wrote on Twitter, posting the video. She was maced, too. (She said the attacker was a woman.)

In Berkeley, protesters slammed Robles and her friends against a barricade. Unable to breathe or see from the pepper spray, rioters surrounded her, some of her friends getting stomped on. "I thought I was going to die," Robles, who is gay, told me.

That is really disturbing shit. Remember the endless rounds of pants shitting reason had over one old guy sucker punching a protester at a Trump rally? Yet, they can't bring themselves to talk about this other than to trot Robby out to tell us how counter productive it is all is to the anti-Trump cause.

Reason to my knowledge has never actually given the full details of these riots and the violence that has gone on at them. Jesus tap dancing Christ, even the Hill is willing to tell the truth. But not reason. No, this is just a few people getting out of hand at an event where a really bad guy was speaking who was you know kind of asking for it though we can't say that.

I'm about done with Reason. I tune in for 2Chili and Hinkle, mostly, and the comments of course. But shit like this is why. There are other sites that cover the philosophy of libertarianism, economics, and current events better. There are other sites that deal with legal issues better. Seems like over the past couple of years Reason has gone from being a libertarian magazine with a few left-leaning contributors to a left-leaning magazine with a couple of libertarian contributors.

Am I wrong for thinking that our republic might be splitting at the seams? For thinking that this kind of political climate simply isn't sustainable?

Residents of many major cities protested the results of a free election. People are being battered at free speech events and the victims are blamed for inciting the violence. A non-negligible portion the American electorate appears to genuinely believe that an evil (not misguided, but truly evil) person resides in the White House. Foundational media corporations are actively repressing mainstream viewpoints. Words are equated with physical assault.

Is there a day of reckoning on the horizon, or are we just feeling the wake as the pendulum swings back to the right a bit?

Is there a day of reckoning on the horizon, or are we just feeling the wake as the pendulum swings back to the right a bit?

It all depends on whether there's something to spark a blaze. We're in a tinderbox, and people are rubbing flints together. However, I think there would need to be a fairly significant event to kick off some sort of reckoning. A major economic downturn. A large natural disaster or terrorist attack. A galvanizing domestic issue.

I don't think that's outside the bounds of reason. I'll say this; the 3%'er crowd and more broadly folks who are 2A enthusiasts, shall we say, seem to be getting ready for the worst. More so than usual.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that the far left plans on using mob violence to some end, although what they think they can accomplish is beyond me. Regardless, what they'll wind up with is a situation where "moderates" are pushed to side with their political foes, and ultimately an environment where the people they're attacking will respond in kind with no quarter given. It ain't the Age of Aquarius anymore.

McInnes, it should be noted, routinely says obnoxious things that deserve criticism.

GodDAMMIT, Soave!! It doesn't need to be noted, you cosmo hack! There is absolutely nothing that Gavin McInnes could possibly fucking say that would morally justify violence against him! Have you ever heard of the goddamn NAP!? The fuck is going on around here!?

GodDAMMIT, Soave!! It doesn't need to be noted, you cosmo hack! There is absolutely nothing that Gavin McInnes could possibly fucking say that would morally justify violence against him! Have you ever heard of the goddamn NAP!? The fuck is going on around here!?

I wouldn't say I've seen everything Gavin has made, but I haven't seen anything from him that was evil. slightly non PC (things that would've been fine 5 years ago) things i guess. Mostly on the transgender/ 93 gender front. He seems somewhere between normal right and paleo.

Also, this Proud Boys thing seems like a trap to get people on the left to be homophobic.

I've watched some of McInnes's stuff and I think you're absolutely right. To lump him in with Richard Spencer, an actual neo-Nazi, is preposterous, disingenuous, and intellectually lazy. Gavin Mcinnes's schtick has always been anti-SJW, not white supremacy, not fascism, not Nazism; he's in the same vein as Steven Crowder, maybe a Rush Limbaugh for the Gen-X / Millenial border generation.

Do you have the name for the foul-mouthed lady professor who seems ignorant of the Nazi slur she used? In fact, Nazi is the abbreviation for NAtional soZIalistische - National Socialist. The Nazi party's full name is NAtional soZIalistische deutsche arbeiter partei - which literally translates from German as the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

The left-wing - Socialists - hate the fact that it was their ideological ancestors the Nazi party who espoused brownshirt violence against those who refused to follow their agenda. They continue using the same Nazi strategy of violence but today wear black and are masked. Modern day socialists also have the same Nazi strong social programs, the same strong gun control agenda, the same strong government control of education, and the same strong emphasis on government jobs and worker's rights as modern socialists. But since their ideological ancestors are universally condemned, they lie by referring to Nazi as right-wing whereas in truth Nazi is actually liberal left-wing and socialist.

"they lie by referring to Nazi as right-wing whereas in truth Nazi is actually liberal left-wing and socialist."

You aren't joking, are you? You actually believe that Hitler was a Socialist? I got stunning news for you. Hitler was not a failed Austrian artiste, as the liars here may tell you. He was a German Worker as the name of his party clearly tells us.

he Nazis certainly weren't the "far" or "extreme" right wing or any of that kind of nonsense that the left uses to try to maximize the distance between themselves and modern history's biggest pariah. In Germany at the time Nazis styled themselves in the middle. With conservatives to their right and "internationalist" socialists (i.e. communists) to their left. Both sides found their parties outlawed and their leaders killed when the Nazis took over.

Guys. I am trying to persuade other people--non-libertarians, even--that free speech is good. It's not easy! Of course it doesn't matter to you or to me whether McInnes says offensive stuff or not. But it matters to the people I'm trying to convince. They're only going to listen to me if I first concede that he said bad things, and then try to convince them to support his right to speak anyway. The "to-be-sure's" you all loathe so much are designed to prevent me from being written off by the people I'm trying to convince.

If I don't qualify, people will think I'm defending his right to speak only because I agree with him, or he's one of my people, or something.

That's it! It's a tactical decision, for the sake of advancing liberty.

I know this is off topic and annoying and I won't harp on it much longer, but as a Reason writer, you might be interested in the libertarian undercurrents in the Romanian mass protests from the past 3 days - much more interesting than the university protests.

Memes include "taxation is theft" and "less Marx more Mises" (copied from Brazilian graffiti, but Marx is not popular in Romania so it's just a borrowed meme that rolls off the tongue nicely, but is not as relevant).

Certain sites, such as dexonline.ro (think of dictionary.com for the English speaking world) ask people to go out and protest, using libertarian themes such as "Democracy means two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch."

It might not be a full fledged libertarian moment, but it is certainly more libertarian oriented than the US elections or protests. Entrenched corruption has pushed people to realize the pitfalls of big government, and its correlation with corruption.

Libertarians are also making strides politically (I personally know one outspoken libertarian who was elected on behalf of a "big tent" reformist party campaigning on an anti-corruption agenda; I can arrange an interview with him, if you are interested, p.m. me - I think readers here might be interested in libertarianism in other countries).

Contrast this with the growing authoritarian and nativist tendencies in the surrounding countries (especially Hungary, Ukraine, much of the European Union etc).

"They're only going to listen to me if I first concede that he said bad things"

Long time lurker here, & I'm not by any stretch to be considered a libertarian, I've voted Republican since I was 18 This election was the very 1st time I didn't. I voted for Johnson, not because he was a good candidate, because frankly he was awful. But as a protest vote against the D/R candidates.

Your logic is totally flawed. IF I had gone with your "he said bad things", it would be quite justifiable to assume that agreeing with that wacko "professor" would ALSO be justifiable. The fact that she was calling for violence to support what she believes is NOT as bad in her mind as the "bad things" he says means they will NOT hear any condemnation in your piece of her over the top call for State violence against the folks they politically disagree with. They truly believe that violence against their political opponents IS justified.

They also would NOT have bothered to go see for themselves if you were even right that he "said bad things" because they already know that he did. You just confirmed they were right to do so, so their calls for violence are also right in their minds I DID go check out what both Milo & McInnes had to say since I'd never heard of either of them. Neither is as "bad" as you wanted to imply, they just don't agree with the left. Shock Jock, probably. But that doesn't make them "bad", so disagreeing with the left is all that you've got left as your qualifier

Guys. I am trying to persuade other people--non-libertarians, even--that free speech is good. It's not easy! Of course it doesn't matter to you or to me whether McInnes says offensive stuff or not. But it matters to the people I'm trying to convince. They're only going to listen to me if I first concede that he said bad things, and then try to convince them to support his right to speak anyway. The "to-be-sure's" you all loathe so much are designed to prevent me from being written off by the people I'm trying to convince.

If I don't qualify, people will think I'm defending his right to speak only because I agree with him, or he's one of my people, or something.

That's it! It's a tactical decision, for the sake of advancing liberty.

Except that there is the problem of you saying "offensive stuff" as well. You think they'll forget about your defending of the cishet white male supremacy that is formerly known as "due process". You won't win them with one view where you sacrifice Milo and Gavin into SJW volcano. You're going to have denounce free speech and due process buddy.

If saying "but they were bad" is necessary to get them to listen to you, then they are not going to listen or care anyway. You are wasting your time. You should just tell the truth and forget about trying to convince those who in reality support this kind of shit but are not honest enough to openly admit it.

You don't need to qualify if you can also find cases that don't involve right wing celebrities. Do a little digging and you should be able to come up with stories where the free speech of regular working schlubs is also trampled on. Balance. Is that no longer stressed in journalism school? Then it won't appear that you are carrying water for fascists, or feel the need to unduly editorialize and scold.

It might serve you better to remind them that there are enough people out there who find their views offensive and dangerous to elect Donald Trump president. Those same people are increasingly referring to them as "fascists" -- not just the guys actually marching around in black and smashing/burning Jewish and Muslim businesses, but the unhinged folks who give them moral cover to act as well. Episiarch observed a while back that the point of snowflakes equating offensive speech with violence was never just to elicit unwarranted sympathy, but also to lay the foundations for justifying retaliating against offensive speech with violence.

The more likely they are to convince people that it's acceptable, even critical, to viciously attack "fascists", the more likely they are to be giving their opponents the rope by which to hang them. And there are a lot of people out there, people tired of walking their entire lives on eggshells, who are stockpiling rope. As the late, lamented Robert Clayton Dean once observed, "Me today, you tomorrow."

Robby, trying to convince people is a laudable goal but tactical equivocation in the face of people who are beating others up for unjustifiable reasons can and will be interpreted as excuse making, whatever your intentions.

It's a tactical mistake that alienates your allies and provides justification to your enemies who already think you, me, and every commenter here are Nazis at worst and lunatics at best anyway.

Thanks and kudos for wading into the maelstrom here. That takes balls. Seriously, you're to be commended for coming into a hostile room and explaining your intent.

Here's the thing. Free speech is good because it allows for open discussion of ideas. When you've resorted to violence, you've stopped discussion. By conceding that there might be an understandable motivation to silence people with whom you disagree by using violence or any other coercive means, you're saying that free speech is great right up to the point where you don't like the contents, at which stage you might be justified in using whatever means you choose to shut that person up. It's the equivalent of justifiable homicide.

Set aside libertarianism, advancing liberty, the NAP, all that stuff for a moment. On your beat you're seeing people repeatedly using mob violence or the threat thereof to silence people with whom they disagree. And not people who are inciting violence themselves, just people saying things they don't like. Forget libertarian; that flies in the face of civilized society.

Don't forget you're talking to a room full of people who have in varying degrees been trying to advance the cause of liberty themselves. And we're doing this in person, with people we'll see every Christmas, or every time we come home for work. Or even worse, random strangers who don't know us from Adam. We get it. Some of us have tried it. It's a losing strategy. Stick to your principles and win the people who feel uncomfortable about setting things on fire when someone says something that makes them upset.

If your objective is to decry the suppression of free speech, simplify and neutralize your message by avoiding the use of labels when you identify victims. Your labeling of McInnes as a "right wing media figure" is a dog-whistle. It shouldn't matter what he's saying, who he works for, or what he thinks, should it?.

Apply labels when the victims themselves use them. If Milo Yiannopolous calls *himself* a "gay jewish homophobe", it's not a just a label, it's a quote (should you choose to use it), but when you tag personalities based on your own observations, prejudices and current conventions, your dog-whistle is a 'tell' on what you really think AND what you want your audience think.

Don't make us force you to read Orwell again. Your "tag" can -and will - be redefined by the left to mean whatever they want it to mean, and in doing so will compromise that message that you're trying to convey to your non-libertarian-but-receptive audience. So, don't do it. Here or (guffaw!) at The Daily Beast

The message here isn't that McInnes deserves free speech even though he thinks things that no nice person should think, but that McInnes deserves free speech. Period.

Freedom of speech is not conditional, to be abolished as some arbitrary line is passed at which point a beat-down is justified.

If you can't be loud and proud (and uncompromising) about unconditional free speech, yours is hardly a principled stand, is it? There are few libertarian messages that are easier to sell to the public than free speech.
"Robby Soave is a contributor who agrees with most of the libertarian principles of Reason Magazine, some of the time"

It's time to take legal action not only against the rioters (who need some lengthy prison sentences), but also against those who incite them and (above all) those who hire them. This is an organized conspiracy to go to war against anyone who disagrees with the Left, using terrorist tactics. They should be treated accordingly.

Richard Spencer is an Alt-Right leader who is advocating for White People. Libertarians and Conservatives have ignored race and have allowed the left to destroy humanity. So wake up, and pay attention to real issues. Do your research. Altright.com

The violent, screaming protesters around the country are associated with liberals, who are associated with Democrats. They are, it seems, determined to make things worse for the Democratic Party than they already are. Let the liberal Vox.com describe them:

"The whole Democratic Party is now a smoking pile of rubble: In state government things are worse, if anything. The GOP now controls historical record number of governors' mansions, including a majority of New England governorships. Tuesday's election swapped around a few state legislative houses but left Democrats controlling a distinct minority. The same story applies further down ballot, where most elected attorneys general, insurance commissioners, secretaries of state, and so forth are Republicans." http://www.vox.com/policy-and-.....ile-rubble

This is why right-wingers such as myself cannot fathom why so many of your libertarians want to align yourselves with liberals versus us exceedingly more tolerant and open-minded conservatives. And no, I am not being sarcastic. Yeah, we disagree with you libertarians on some core issues, but overall, we run more more parallel with ya'll than ya'll do with crazy-azz liberals, wouldn't you say? *shrugs*

I'm coming around to this belief myself. I used to think that libertarians would do well to find common ground with leftists, but that's impossible in most cases.

Leftists believe that all income really belongs to "the people" (i.e. the government) and that "income inequality" is an evil that must be stamped out. Leftists believe that all human rights must be trampled if they are permitting discrimination against a "protected class". Leftists believe that the only reason someone would want to own a gun is to murder someone. Leftists believe that the government has the miraculous ability to make something "free" with no injury to supply, quality, or human freedoms. Leftists believe that the corporations "set prices" wherever they want, and they believe that the government should hijack this ability to increase the price of labor. Leftists believe that it's the most vile form of exploitation to cut yourself a paycheck from the productive enterprise that you founded, even if you did all of the work early on and risked financial ruin should the business fail.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. I've tried and failed to make common ground with the left. The unfortunate fact is that the left has no first principles on human rights. They just think of something they want (gay marriage, abortions, free healthcare, high-speed Internet, etc.) and then proclaim it to be a human right. You can't make common ground until you rid them of their faulty ideas on what rights are and where they come from, and that's no easy task. It's like trying to fix the crumbling foundation on a skyscraper that's already built; sometimes it's just easier to write it off and make a new building somewhere else.

I think the best strategy is to seek out people who are nonpolitical (either young people or adults who have never gotten into politics) and show them the principles on which libertarianism is founded.

"UPDATE: The screamer is possibly Rebecca Goyette, an artist who specializes in lobster-related pornography and video enactments of Donald Trump being castrated. Her CV claims she has served as an adjunct professor of art, but not at expensive NYU."

Her gallery (you may want to contort your body in such a way as to prevent other individuals from witnessing what you are about to see):

When are Libertarians going to figure out the American Left is our political enemy? The Left is no longer Liberal in any sense of the word. They are collectivists and radicals opposed to individual liberty and driven by anger and hatred of "white" people meaning Western civilization. Stand up to these petty tyrants.

Reason Mag is a cuckhold agenda.
The left wants White People dead. Take up arms, organize militias & gangs. Use self defense to defend yourself, your family, & your community. The left wants a civil war. Anyone who voted Trump Is a target by leftist maniacs. This is not a battle of ideas. The left is using violence. Time to use self defense.